With the PNG solution and now Operation Sovereign Borders, the domestic politics of the asylum seeker crisis is driving policy more than ever before, writes Michael Brissenden. And despite all that’s been said over the past week, the boats keep coming.

Is it a political statement or is it a policy? That’s a legitimate question to ask about the Coalition’s new Operation Sovereign Borders.

With an election looming and political tensions surrounding the issue even more fractious than usual, the question of who has the right policy is now lost in a political Dutch auction.

At this stage it’s easy to read the Coalition’s announcement as catch-up politics by an Opposition Leader left flat-footed by the sheer audacity and unexpected political chicanery of Kevin Rudd’s PNG solution.

To be fair, the PNG solution left more than a few people gasping open-mouthed at the return of that familiar brand of chaos politics. After all there’s a lot of ground to make up. The “folk” in the seats that matter need reassuring. “Gotta zip.”

With Kevin Rudd sucking up the political oxygen, just getting noticed has been difficult for an Opposition Leader used to having a fairly easy run.

So he needed a “National Emergency” to be tackled - by no less than a three-star general who would oversee the 12 agencies that now have direct involvement in border security and would coordinate asylum seeker detention and offshore processing. The military leadership would report directly to the Immigration Minister, rather than the current arrangement which has a two-star admiral at the head of what’s called the “Border Protection Command”, who is only responsible for the intercept and detection of boats and who answers to the Minister for Home Affairs.

If you were going to give a department overall responsibility for such a difficult policy area, based on their track record, you wouldn’t think the Department of Immigration would be your first pick.

This is not a Defence problem. These people are not attacking Australia.

The Opposition’s new policy was informed by the retired major General Jim Molan, who says it will allow the Coalition, should it win government, to “give more refined direction the agencies and the agencies’ plans”.

Asked on ABC Radio about what he thought of the Rudd PNG solution, Jim Molan declared he was suspicious of the timing, given the Rudd announcement was made just a month or so from an election - although he admitted he was sounding much too “partisan” even for his own liking.

But now both sides are deliberately trying to inject the partisan into this issue.

Former Chief of Defence Force Admiral Chris Barrie is one who thinks it’s all a bit of political overkill.

“The job that I think we’re trying to resolve here is one of surveillance, patrol and response.” That’s not going to change because we’ve changed the bureaucratic arrangements in Canberra, he says.

Many of those like Barrie who’ve been around this policy argument for a long time are questioning the need to change the emphasis of how we approach it. Call it a “National Emergency” if you like, they say, but it’s not a military problem.

Alan Behm, a former senior Defence official, who has worked closely with both Coalition and Labor governments, says, “This is not a Defence problem. These people are not attacking Australia.”

The domestic politics of the asylum seeker crisis is now driving policy more than ever before.

But it seems nothing will stop desperate people looking to find a better life for themselves and their families. Despite all that’s been said over the past week, the boats keep coming. Manus Island won’t be able to hold them all and turning the boats back isn’t going to work without an agreement with the Indonesians.

Surely the only way to deal with this is not to look for quick-fix solutions but to work on regional agreements that will actually stand the test of time.

No doubt we’ll have to wait at least until the election is out of the way.

Michael Brissenden is the ABC's national defence correspondent. View his full profile here.

James in Brisbane:

26 Jul 2013 8:03:17am

Zaphod, you need to hang around Campbelltown, Gympie or Rockhampton a bit more often - a lot of people would love it. There are a lot of angry, disgruntled and mean people in regional and rural areas with no sympathy for anyone except themselves.

maxine:

26 Jul 2013 8:27:21am

Zaphod - how much do you think the Abbott suggestion will cost?I'm absolutely amazed that the LNP had a retired navy bloke coming on our screen to explain the new policy. Has Abbott and his mob not the brains or the guts to front the 730 report?

Mike 1:

v:

26 Jul 2013 11:09:13am

What other reaction do you expect when people are sick of our boarders being invaded as a result of the ALP and rudd's actions and the fact that the ALP continue to lie to use over the issue and treat us like mugs.

Kevin:

I suggest, based on the coalitions ability to rally anti-government protest around the country, that there would be somewhere between 1500-3000 people in this country that would love it.

Wake up to yourself. Other than the above ignorant tiny minority, no Australians want to see these people drown. Believe it or not Australian's are very compassionate and welcoming people. The problem within a large portion of the public is not with asylum seekers or refugee's, it is with their method of getting to Australia which has been made far more polarising by the fear mongering of the coalition and the political bias of the MSM.

I can't remember ever seeing a balanced, facts based debate on this issue. There are always people from the far right or the far left pushing their agenda and both are wrong. The Left try to claim the moral high ground but their solutions only maximise deaths at sea. The right push fear which gets in the way of sensible, workable solutions.

Yes we have to stop the boats, not because asylum seekers are terrorists etc, but because we need firstly to stop deaths at sea. Of all the problem of this issue, this is the biggest and most urgent. Abbott has no policy that could achieve this aim. Malaysia was working until it was stopped by the high court and the coalition prevented legislative changes needed to re-instate this policy. PNG could work for the same reason Malaysia was working- It takes Australia away from the end of the boat trip.

It is way past time for the MSM to stand up for the facts and balance, particularly on this issue. People are dying, stop letting Abbott get away with lies and fear mongering. Force him to actually come up with a workable policy or admit he has no answers.

Prior to the Pacific Solution and subsequent to Gillard demolishing it there were thousands making the attempt to land in Australia through leaky boats resulting in the Tampa disaster (August 2001) which led to the Pacific Solution.

Circular:

26 Jul 2013 9:02:08am

Absolutely, something the libs choose to ignore. The decline in number was already apparent around the world when the so called pacific solution appeared. The real issue is of comparison. Would the Howard 'solution' have worked if refugee numbers were increasing. Such an analysis would give a better picture of whether the Rudd 'solution' is going to work. As such it lies in the realm of prediction.

Dave:

26 Jul 2013 11:06:16am

Wrong, the graphs of the time that rudd destroyed our boarder protection show that as the illegal immegrants decreased to all other countries in the world, ours increased. The Pacific solution did work and the result of krudds actions proved this.

John51:

26 Jul 2013 11:21:37am

Ah, Alpo, you have hit the issue here. Abbott and the coalition do not like to admit to the existance of the GFC. They don't like to admit to its effect on economy, the need for stimulus measures and with it the increase in government dept. And they certainly don't like to admit to it being one of the drivers of the increase in the asylum flows.

The GFC is not simply a driver of so called economic migrants. It has been the tipping force to much of the political and social upheaval going on around the world. Increased prices of food and increases in unemployment and under-employment simply helped to to tip over the existing underlying political and social disenchantments into political action.

It is not only in the Middle East, Africa and some parts of Asia that we are seeing this upheaval, political dissent and violence. We are also seeing it within Britain, Europe and Eastern Europe with riots and shifts to the far right with increases in racism and fascism. But what we are also seeing is that is far easier for people from Britain and Europe to immigrate here and or get work visas here than for people from the Middle East.

It is not that many of the people seeking asylum are not well educated or have skills. Iranians for instance are well educated with many of those seeking asylum having University qualifications. But from what I have seen they are well down on the list of those we are most likely to accept for immigrating and or work visas. So as far as I can see they feel they have only one option and that is to use people smugglers to get here.

For many of these people there is no queue to stand in line. If there is it is so long that their children if not grand children will still be standing in it before they have any chance to reach the end of that line. For politicians to talk about queues is to talk nonsense and to treat us all as fools. And if we are willing to accept that line that maybe we are fools and happy to be fools.

Notfooled:

26 Jul 2013 11:24:43am

Anything to dodge responsibility eh Alpo ? Please expound and explain to us lesser mortals why this is happening because of Evil Tony ? Unbelievable, the ALP Tribe will do and say anything to hold power and stop the Inquisition ( aka Royal Commission into Union Corruption? Yep, the last 6 years of exponentially growing boat arrivals is the fault of the Opposition, HA !

Bill:

26 Jul 2013 12:31:50pm

Children overboard, or do the the coalition have very short memories. The The coalition couldn't solve a simple problem let alone a major problem, all they (the coalition) are interested in is look at me, how good am I and bugger anyone else. For a start their wacky idea in regard to the NBN at the node, look up facts that the LNP don't want you to know, you will be surprised.

James in Brisbane:

26 Jul 2013 8:04:16am

And if Mr Abbott gets in and the drownings continue, people like you will be utterly mute with their heads in the sand. No chance of you ever admitting that empiricism may not have supported your case, such is the partisan mind.

Robert:

Stuffed Olive:

26 Jul 2013 1:26:11pm

Yeh, just like WW1 was to be the end of all wars. Didn't solve anything did it. What apparently worked once doesn't necessarily work again. It's the luck of the draw in many ways. But making asylum seekers such a political issue remains THE most disgusting thing that has happened to politics.

Rusty:

25 Jul 2013 8:17:10pm

AGA,

So if Australia's military, that costs us $billions every year, is not supposed to protect our sovereign borders then what value are they?

We send them without hesitation all over the world to protect the borders and security of other countries - why not their own country, Australia...makes good sense to me and probably most thinking Australians...

Military life is tough and often messy and distasteful...if any members of the military don't like it then quit and become civilians...until then they are expected to follow the orders of the Australian PM...and if it is Abbott they would be expected to obey his orders...

James in Brisbane:

26 Jul 2013 8:05:26am

Rusty, the military protect us against armed and existential threats. That's the difference. Even soldiers gets a little bit upset at being asked to facilitate the deaths of unarmed civilians. Believe it or not.

Tom1:

26 Jul 2013 11:23:04am

Rusty: You seem to know something the rest of us do not. I thought that the three star general, who must be superfluous to normal requirements, was to be given the job of co-coordinating the efforts of several departments.

Your "Morrison-ism" (Over statement of a given situation) does you credit. Now we will have the army in control I am sure that the dire situation of attack on our sovereign boarders will be overcome. Just as well they are refugees in leaky boats, otherwise we would have to recruit two three star generals.

JOP:

26 Jul 2013 11:45:01am

Ah such enlightened 'thinking' too..... I've often observed that those who don't have the courage to serve are the most active in calling on the military to do their dirty work for them. 'Obey his orders' indeed. I think that excuse has been heard in the Hague a number of times over recent years. It doesn't hold up anymore against internation law. And the military leadership (mostly) knows it. No one will go to gaol for Abbott.

antipostmodernism:

Sick of ALP Spin:

26 Jul 2013 11:14:35am

Exactly antipostmodernism and some how it is all Howard and the LNP's fault for the consequence of KRudd's action. Interesting how someone or things always dies as a result of his brain wave ideas when put into action.

Paulh:

26 Jul 2013 8:07:08am

We already have the navy, the coastguard, border control ,immigration dept etc running round in circles and risking their own lives. We need ONE person to coordinate a PROPER structured system to turn back the boats and patrol our coastlines. We need proper detention centres with quick processing for these people, these people choose to come here by boat, they choose to throw away their passports and identification etc. This mess was caused and exacerbated by RUDD, untill he actually admits his mistakes NOTHING will be fixed,nothing will change, lives will be lost and Billions wasted.

Helen Killen:

Notfooled:

26 Jul 2013 11:21:31am

Our brave people on the front line are doing exactly that right now and have been for at least 4 years. Labor only cares now because King Kev must save them from the Inquisition ( aka Royal Commission into Union Corruption).They only care when they need to be re-elected, don't you get it yet ? Labor have power now and for the last 6 long years, the responsibility for this disaster rests solely with them and it's architect Capt Chaos.

robert:

Warrenz:

25 Jul 2013 7:57:12pm

So Robert what you're saying is that the internal conflicts of the Middle-East and the 250 million corrupt and recalcitrant Indonesians to our north have nothing to do with the increase of asylum seekers to Australia? That simply defies logic. Or are you in fact saying that Labor has made the economy so attractive that we've become the promised land?

robert:

25 Jul 2013 8:12:28pm

So Warrenz you'd have us throw our hands up in the air and give up,well that simply defies logic and it's not what is going to happen. I have every confidence that when Tony Abbott becomes Prime Minister finally, there will be someone in the job that will deal with the issue.

Francis C.:

26 Jul 2013 7:07:05am

Well done Robert! Spoken with all the clarity and decisiveness of someone with a closed mind. In case there is someone out there with an open mind, let me propose something else. We all know that there are millions of displaced people in the world and many refugees. I find it difficult to understand the negative response towards assylum seekers. NO-ONE is advocating that Australia should accept every single one of them. There is a process for determining whether someone has genuine objective fears of persecution in their own country. There are relatively few refugees attempting to come here by plane or boat. Before it is stated that there are "thousands" coming here, let us remember that 132,000 were accepted into this country on 457 visas in the last year or so. There are also between 200,00 and 300,000 permanent and temporary visas issued every year. Unfortunately the number of refugees accepted has been frozen at 14,000 (or so) until recently. Just because we cannot accept everyone, does not mean that we should always accept a tiny number. I would prefer Australia to accept 132,000 refugees and only 14,000 457 visa holders, (which is extremely unlikely to happen in todays emotional political climate.)

Helen Killen:

26 Jul 2013 10:45:18am

More Mis- information. We have 20,000 refugee places available for resettlement here and all the benefits that go with it. Unfortunately the refugees waiting in the camps for YEARS can't get them because they have been taken by those who have the money to pay for tickets from Iran that include the boat trip to Christmas island with a 2 week turn around and Naval escort. I am astounded that people are STIQLL calling economic "asylum seekers" refugees. They Re nothing of the sort. They are coming here in their thousands because they want a better lifestyle not because they are being persecuted! Until people stop putting those in genuine need like those in the camps in the same category as those seeking a better lifestyle with refugee benefits this problem can never be understood.

Frank:

26 Jul 2013 1:05:59pm

Not to mention the hundreds of Thousands (yes that many) New Zealand citizens that come here and don't even need 457 visa's to poach our jobs. So the minute the current Labor member for the federal seat of Brand starts spruiking he will fix the high unemployment (claimed to be 17.5% in some trades there) I'll be wanting to know what he intends to do about the open door policy from NZ as well. Strangely the Liberals remain silent on this issue also.

CM:

26 Jul 2013 2:13:03pm

Francis, your response is ill-conceived. It may be that no one is suggesting that Australia take ?all? refugees, but the underlying fear is that if people continue entering the country with no prior screening (ie ?lawfully? with a visa) and full access to welfare and Medicare benefits etc as well as the right to work once their refugee status is accepted, what was once a trickle and is now a stream will grow into a river and possibly a flood, partly because the more people enter this way, the greater the resources needed to screen and judge their merits as refugees anyway, and of course to return them if they are judged not to be refugees. The number actually entering will of course always be finite, but what is to stop it rising continually until it is very large, as more asylum seekers feel encouraged to try it? In fact, the larger it is, the harder it could be to exert any control. The system could (it is feared) end up being overwhelmed, at least until the influx of needy people, who, once approved, nearly always then immediately apply for Centrelink benefits, housing, Medicare and for relatives to join them, imposes such massive strains on the Australian economy and society that Australia becomes less desirable as a place to come. Then it might stop, but too late. This I believe is the real fear, at its nub. You may disagree, but it is hardly relevant to point to 457 visa holders and other temporary entrants (or ?overstayers? for that matter) who earn or bring with them their own funds and have no access to welfare payments or other publicly-funded benefits at all. If people realised how closely DIAC scrutinises most visa applications and the measures taken to maximise the chances that entrants are who they say they are etc and minimise the risk that they might be a cost to the Australian public, perhaps they would understand better the well-springs of the ?fear? and the demonization of ?illegals?. I agree that they are not illegal, but the question of what is more correctly described as ?lawfulness? or ?unlawfulness? in this context boils down to compliance with processes designed to protect the public purse, among other things. Perhaps it?s regrettable that many Australians aren?t generous enough to contemplate a possible precipitous drop in living standards in order to abide by an international convention we have signed, and don?t feel more ?compassion? for the boat arrivals. But perhaps it would be more realistic for those who support this unregulated entry to mount arguments why this scenario could not occur.

Alpo:

26 Jul 2013 7:10:46am

Robert, you are just falling for the Liberal propaganda. Nobody is throwing any hands up, the number of refugees are increasing because they are increasing worldwide. Just make an effort to inform yourself instead of reading from Liberal propaganda leaflets. Abbott is a total disaster and not worthy of the Leadership of the Opposition... let alone the Prime Ministership!

Helen Killen:

26 Jul 2013 10:52:35am

The MOST VUNERABLE people in the world are those poor UNHCR refugees waiting on the camps for YEARS NOT those who have the money to buy tickets in Iran to fly to I do Elia and the get on a. Oat with. Guaranteed 2 weeks turn around.

Forrest Gardener:

Paulh:

26 Jul 2013 8:13:18am

Most EU countries have refugee issues but usually refer to them as illegal immigrants. These issues are costing BILLIoNS and are predominantly caused by ECONOMIC refugees. The UNHCR ,which was drawn up in the 1950's for people crossing war torn borders , is out of date and not relevant to this type of economic refugee. We do have a RIGHT to manage our borders and say who can or can't cross them,regardless of the UNHCR.Rudds scrapping of policies that worked caused this debacle.

Justin:

26 Jul 2013 11:03:50am

Alpo, and the Rudd "solution" is looking good isn't it?! Uncosted, dumping of people on a foreign jurisdiction with no means of asylum to Australia, inadequate facilities, reports of assaults and rapes. And the Indonesians are now up in arms over not being consulted. I just wonder if this was the old Rudd "announce it on the run" of the past.

Cambridge Prince:

Tom1:

26 Jul 2013 11:35:12am

Of course you do robert. Tony has "Faith" too. He wants to stop the boats because the people occupying them have not the same "Faith" as he has.

I do agree that we need to be in control of our own migration system, currently being disrupted by people smugglers, but by reasons are far removed from those of Abbott who thinks he has had Labor wedged for three years, and Rudd who is trying to get out from under.

It is a bit like Syria. The Dictator there needs more that 100,000 reasons to consider that he is not the best thing for the country.

Bipartisanship seems to be a dirty word in our current politics. Mind you I would be hard pressed to accept Abbott as PM.

jusme:

25 Jul 2013 7:11:47pm

the coalition and media whipped up unnecessary, massive fear and panic over this issue starting with howard. for the politicians its the old "create an enemy" to unite the country against and for the media, well drama sells.

labor, to be competitive has had to play along and now doing is even better than the aggressors.

I agree, the original problem remains a humanitarian one and only the greens have remained sane enough to see that.

nobody is talking about the other thing rudd has done and that's to get Indonesia to allow less people in by plane to start with, so there's less to get on boats. doesn't involve clashes at sea, concentration camps or any expenditure at all. i'm not saying it's morally correct but it's a far smarter move than anything else these old parties have come up with.

John:

25 Jul 2013 7:39:08pm

It is not a question of "humanitarian", jusme. It is a question of legality. The boat arrivals are illegal entrants, and should be dealt with as such.

Our humanitarian efforts should be directed to the poor wretches who have spent years in UNHCR camps waiting for some country or other to show some compassion. There are over 100,000 in Malaysian camps, almost on our border.

While we waste our sympathy and our money on these illegal migrants who steal places, the camp residents can continue to rot away for a few more years.

Lezza:

25 Jul 2013 8:04:02pm

Last para of your post is silly and elitist. Who cares if the subject of your bleat doesn't hit the shift key every now and again? Shouldn't his sentiments, rather than perceived education / literary skills, be what it's all about? Your own writing comprehension is ordinary, and on technical issues, is that a missed space in line one? Loosen up.

john:

26 Jul 2013 8:30:19am

Your post is silly and defeatist - and incorrect.

No, those are not missed spaces (you actually mean missed lines, but I can still work out what you are trying to say) but are spaces placed there for the purposes of paragraphs and clear comprehension by the reader. That is also why capital letters, quotation marks, commas and semi-colons, and other punctuation should be used.

I did refer to the sentiments expressed, and set out the misconceptions concerning the legality of these entrants.

kevca:

25 Jul 2013 8:10:33pm

John you are so right. Those people languishing in camps while people who have thousands of dollars to spend get on boats and put everyone at risk. So what's wrong with this new plan--Lets try it anyway. They have been disgussing this for months, that's why Abbott hasn't said anything; until he knew for sure that the navy was on board. Shame Rudd doesn't apologise for starting this in the first place. Mr show pony.

Give us a break:

GrahamD:

25 Jul 2013 8:14:30pm

We are signatories to the Refugee Convention..

This bit is part of what we signed..

"The Contracting States [that's Australia] shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. (Article 31, (1))"

So The "Directly" part may be in dispute and since Australia is now not part of it's own Migration Zone maybe they should be heading straight to one of the refugee centres which may not have an Airport.

Gets a bit more complicated than "Stop the Boats" and "Illegal immigrants" and that's just one small part.

Aussie Sutra:

26 Jul 2013 5:53:36am

Note that the entry remains "illegal". Also, PNG is not a "penalty". We do need to remove ourselves from the wretched convention though. All we need to do is send a letter to the UN Secretary General and give 12 months notice. In the meantime, let all arrivals go to PNG.

john:

26 Jul 2013 8:45:52am

True, GrahamD, but this is also part of the UNHCR Convention, to which Australia is a signatory:

"These agreements are ? based on the notion of safe, or first, country of asylum, providing for the return of refugees and asylum seekers to countries where they have had or could have sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, either within that country or by an act of refoulement".

A "safe" country of asylum is described in the Convention as "a country where the asylum seeker is free from the threat of persecution. The concept of Safe Country of Asylum holds that an asylum seeker can correctly be returned to a country where refuge has been found and an opportunity to obtain asylum has been gained, on the proviso that the relevant country will not refoule".

Thus, according to the Convention, a person who has entered a country that provides safe haven ceases to be an asylum seeker if he/she leaves that country. An Afghan coming to Australia, for example, will have been granted safe haven in five or six countries before setting out in a people smuggler's boat.

What is also important, and what seems never to be discussed, is that if we followed the precepts set out in the Convention we would be entitled to return the illegal boat travellers to a country through which they had travelled en route to Australia. And that, despite the howls it would cause, includes. for an Afghan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.

blax5:

26 Jul 2013 10:32:12am

It only gets complicated when you try to reconcile the obligations from the Convention with the requirements of the Australian people. We do not have housing for the numbers that seem to be heading here. Public housing is being faded out, private rental they could not afford. We must provide for them in every sense of the word, and Nissen huts without running water had their day.

Nothing will be solved until we have exited the Convention. The Military does what is in Australia's interest, no discussion.

If Curveball had not been granted asylum in Germany and had instead been sent straight back to Iraq, that would have been extremely desirable but as a signatory Germany was not allowed to do that. As his information that underpinned the Iraq War turned out to be a concoction, his asylum claim was probably also a concoction.

Zoltar:

26 Jul 2013 11:43:20am

GrahamD, what we signed was: an obligation to place candy on the table that increased with our standard of living; an obligation to "queue jump" the welfare of asylum seekers, ahead of the welfare of all refugees located elsewhere; and an obligation to surrender our sovereignty to uncapped numbers of foreigners. We never should have signed this convention.

For the last couple of decades we've been creating measures to sour the candy, and to harshly deter asylum seekers from coming here and claiming it. We do this because our politicians are too gutless to withdraw us from the Refugee Convention. A convention that many (probably most) Australians oppose (even if they may not realise it).

Oh dear...:

Seeking asylum is not illegal - not under Australian law (Migration Act 1958) or under international law (UN Refugee Convention).

And there is 'queue' as you or I understand that word. Refugees are resettled according to their status, not how long they have been in a camp.

"There is a view that asylum seekers, particularly those who arrive in Australia by boat, are ?jumping the queue? and taking the place of a more deserving refugee awaiting resettlement in a refugee camp. The concept of an orderly queue does not accord with the reality of the asylum process."

antipostmodernism:

26 Jul 2013 7:36:01am

On that website; those aren't facts, that is a refugee cheer squad. When you sign up to these international inanities a bureaucracy of earnest lefties swarms to promotes the cause. You have to overlook for example that refugee assessments are not a reflection of reality but of defeat; rubbish in, rubbish out.

Mark James:

The Parliamentary Library is staffed by a refugee cheer squad bureaucracy of earnest lefties?

Heavens above!

Presumbably, with a department so integral to the workings of Australian democracy having been comprehensively taken over by the dreaded leftists, the Coalition must surely abolish it if elected?

Or perhaps, as part of their 'war on red tape', they will simply do away with Canberra's administrative departments, make up their own records to file in the public domain, and outsource the narrative to News Ltd?

And future Australians and historians will then be able to explore the records from the Coalition's Department of Memory and discover how Whyalla was wiped off the map in 2012; how pensioners' electricity bills doubled under the carbon tax; how Iraq was teeming with WMD in 2003; how children were thrown overboard in 2001; how Tony Abbott single-handedly fought off a sea invasion from the north by marauding, queue jumping, infanticidal, economic migrants; how Australia was once ruled by a red-haired witch who tried to steal money from poor mining magnates while making castration mandatory; and so on.

Helen Killen:

26 Jul 2013 10:58:41am

There is NO QUE... But we have a QUOTA of 20,000. Those places belong to the most needy NOT the wealthy who can buy tickets form IRan to fly to Indonesia, dump their id and get on boats to here with a 2 weeks guaranteed arrival time. So sick of the MIS information and manipulation by the greens and the refugee Industry!

Zoltar:

26 Jul 2013 12:38:33pm

Oh dear, we treat it more like a corrupt lottery than a queue, in which we hand out permanent residency to the winning ticket holders.

A corrupt lottery in which we place all the names of the millions of refugees seeking resettlement into one barrel; all the names of asylum seekers who arrive by air into a second barrel; and all the names of asylum seekers who arrive by boat into a third barrel. We then proceed to draw out: more than 90% of the names from the 'by boat' barrel (who used to get permanent Australian residency, and who may now get permanent PNG residency at a lower success rate); about half the names from the 'by air' barrel (who still get permanent Australian residency); and a few thousand names from the millions in the 'offshore refugee' barrel (who get permanent Australian residency). Naturally, refugees want their name to be in the 'by boat' barrel. Who could blame them.

Whilst the Refugee Convention does not insist upon permanent residency being the prize, it does insist that the welfare of asylum seekers (refugees that arrive at our borders), must "queue jump" the welfare of all refugees located elsewhere (to whom we owe nothing under the convention).

Many Australians, probably most, see this as hugely unfair. And for good reason.

James in Brisbane:

26 Jul 2013 8:09:12am

John, that would require us increasing our take from camps, which we haven't. We take a paltry number. Yet we take hundreds of thousands of other migrants plus the 60,000 or so tourists who overstay their visas. Never hear about people wailing about those.

If I'm allowed to not show compassion to my fellow man, can I start by cutting pensions? Why should people, who've had a lifetime to prepare for their retirement, suck off the taxpayer teat for the rest of their lives when they've fail to adequately provision for themselves?

Give us a break:

26 Jul 2013 1:12:16pm

The boat arrivals are not illegal. They have people seeking asylum on board. Anyone can seek asylum in Australia. It does not matter where they come from. I suggest you look up the definition of a refugee, before shooting your mouth off.

Rudds plan is to deter people from making the dangerous trip and anyone who does will end up in PNG. The people in camps, who you claim to be illegal, will be processed as per normal.

His plan is a winner, but the born to rules dont want to talk about it.

Notfooled:

Terry:

25 Jul 2013 7:26:25pm

How about fixing the issue at the other end?

Apparently a huge proportion of the self-selected immigrants are found to be "genuine" refugees. I have doubts about this, as the investigation seems restricted to asking "Are you seeking asylum?" followed by "Are you fleeing persecution?". (I am joking, but does anyone still believe that the smugglers don't provide selection of acceptable stories?). but let us assume it is true. (I have heard many commentators on the ABC who believe every word from the lips of these arrivals.)

The solution is obvious. We are granting refugee status on the basis these people fear persecution. Any country persecuting its own citizens should be thrown out of the United Nations and have all aid immediately stopped. We should use our costly place in the UN to set up trade barriers and embargos. In other words, isolate these countries. Far more worthwhile than trying to blockade the only secular democracy in the ME.

Then start to form coalitions of the wiling to liberate these countries. No-one will object: these governments are forcing people to risk their lives at sea! It will save lives.

We can then sit back knowing we have not treated the symptoms but cured the disease.

OUB :

26 Jul 2013 10:48:04am

Nah. Getting kicked out of the UN is no punishment. It's better to keep them there to keep lines of communication open. No one wants the UN acting as the world's policeman. The US provide a good chunk of the funding but could easily be outvoted in the General Assembly or the Security Council so they won't go for it. Imagine how long Israel would last under your regime. The USA couldn't tolerate giving up its influence.

Better value in spending more money on large rewards for people smugglers I think. That would require more cooperation from Indonesian and Malaysian governments and courts but I think a value proposition could be put forward there. And we'd need stronger laws and sentencing when we got the buggers back to Australia. People residing here and providing funding for passages and those here facilitating should face stiff Australian laws. People like Ian Rintoul are too involved from my perspective and deserve closer attention.

Leave the UN out of it. They are either useless or uncontrollable. They have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with benefitting Australia. Plus wars generate more refugees.

Frank:

25 Jul 2013 7:32:39pm

I'm not thinking the Coalition is headed down "the bquick fix path" at all, and their policy has been evolving for six years (after Rudd of course made border protection and homeland security a joke). Rudd the wrecker is making policy on the run and the sooner he is done away with the better. The Navy will of course do what is has to do at the direction of Government, and regardless of former Admiral Chris Barrie's personal opinion on the issue, the Navy will do a great job at turning back boats if that is the direction. After all they have done a splendid job as a taxi and escort service (at Rudd/Gillard's direction), so why should we expect anything else from those following orders. These boat people are illegally entering Australia and present a real threat in terms of security and criminality, not to mention the Islamic and other terrorist implications and of course anti-social aspects the likes of which we are already seeing through the courts and on the streets. For anyone to suggest border protection isn't a Navy job, that's just "rubbish, rot and baulderdash.

Mattb:

25 Jul 2013 8:20:58pm

"evolving for six years"

Wow, just wow, are people seriously this gullible?. if it has taken them six years to come up with the absolute rubbish they dished up today then I want my taxes that have gone to paying theirs and their advisors wages for the past six years back.

Biggest oxygen thieves Australia has ever seen. I'd be embarrassed to admit to supporting these morons at the best of times but today Abbott and his new front bench man 'Moylon' proved how bereft of ideas the conservative side of politics currently are..

SVJ:

26 Jul 2013 7:30:05am

I'm not gullible, but I'm pissed that the last 6 years in taxes have funded the oxygen thieves in the current administration (and I've lost count of the number who have passed through the leadership revolving door!!).

I'm pissed that there are people so gullible to believe a re-hashed Rudd is some type of political savior and he could potentially have another 3 years to drive an economy with potential into the ground!

I'm pissed that I'm paying more in cost of living for a carbon tax and myriad of green schemes that have no impact on our footprint and now the idiots who passed it are rushing to send more of my tax dollars to a permits market only bolstered by policy intervention!

I'm pissed that we had some certainty around September but now who the hell knows while our grand PM traverses the world stage at my expense when we want an election and certainty.

And finally I'm pissed at idiots like you who dare to call me gullible!

Frank:

26 Jul 2013 11:12:45am

Of course "Mattb" I wouldn't expect you to understand six years of the Coalition's calling on the Government to restore Border Protection and all else to what it was before Rudd (the same Kevin Rudd) dismantled it. I wouldn't expect you to understand the Billions Rudd/Gillard/Rudd have squandered on their stupid idealogy, and I wouldn't expect you to have followed the debate, the Houston Committee, or the flips flops Labor has done on this all the while the Coalition has maintained it's stance on restoring Border Protection and the message "Australia will decide who comes into the country". No you "Mattb" are focused on "Rudd the Dudd's" daily sound bites and policy on the run. After all, that is this Con Artists way, suck in the gullible (no matter the cost) so he might get elected. Try this for "oxygen theives", the interest alone on Labors debt, is equivelant top the entire Department of Defence's annual budget, let alone paying down any of the principal. Try clawing back your tax contributions on that.

Kangaroo Edward:

26 Jul 2013 10:49:21am

Abbott obfuscating and filibustering over the Houston panel recommendations and the PNG proposal has clearly sent the message to people smugglers to keep sending the boats, it's business as usual. In the great Liberal tradition of free enterprise and market forces Australia is being duped into thinking there's a so called 'national emergency' by another empty vessel in the form of the LNP.The level of hysteria being generated by them over this issue is repugnant and disproportionate to the real issue of what Abbott is going to do should he win office. What intrinsic value does their policy have short of dragging us into the xenophobic, shallow, mean spirited and tricky vision they have for this country.

ru4real:

25 Jul 2013 7:32:54pm

'(Jim Molan) ... admitted he was sounding much too ?partisan? even for his own liking.' The picture says it all: a former top military man holding the stage in front of Tony Abbott, the 'would-be-PM'. What does this look like?

The generals have taken over in Egypt. Do we want Australia governed by the ideas of the military? The military has no role in being politicised, and it is a sign of Tony Abbott's desperation that he would make such a gross error of judgement as to be seen playing second fiddle to the military.

Asylum seekers policy is a civil matter, and the Navy (and Army and Air Force) quite rightly need to be 'at arm's length'. We are not a military dictatorship, and never want to go along that track where government is in the sway of the armed forces.

Tony Abbott's talk about national 'emergencyh' gives a false sense to the public of how best to manage the asylum seekers situation. He could have, at any time over the past six years, got together with the PM and other party leaders and Independents and thrashed out a multi-party 'solution'. He has chosen not to do so.

Just before the election campaign goes into full swing, Tony Abbott makes a huge blunder - and brings in a former head of the military instead of consulting, with the current heads of the military and the government. ?This is not a Defence problem. These people are not attacking Australia.? This is the truth

Horrocks:

25 Jul 2013 8:17:28pm

I'd rather have the military run the country than the Greens. I understand why Abbott wants the job run by a senior military officer, they are trained to co-ordinate large scale operations, after all look at e great job Stretton did after Cyclone Tracey in Darwin, and I believe there was a senior army officer in charge of the cleanup in Qld after Yasi and the floods, they have the experience and ability which most senior public servants don't have

In some respects they are attacking the country through the importation of diseases both human and animal/plant in the form of the fishing boats which have to be burnt due to their very nature if being made of wood.

Closet Romantic:

I don't think we have to fear a coup but our military is being politicised

Both sides seem to be getting military people who support their methods to back them publicly both current and retired.

It's getting quite confusing

More senior ndividuals support the coalition but more official department statements support the ALP

The Military in general tends to be conservative, but that's a generality not a fact.

With the AWB and various WMD lies the Liberals lost a lot of support from the military and intelligence communities which is why we got Mike Kelly in the Labor party and Wilkie as an independent .

What do the ex military personnel on the forums think who is more credible in this argument?

I have to admit Operation Soverign Borders seems a bit far, this is a legal policing problem not a military one.

Between this and the sex scandals our armed forces seem to have become a political football, they are sent to wars that have nothing to do with our national interests and have their lives put at risk for others profit. The AWB scandal was the obvious one.

We rely on our government to protect our military by not exposing them to risk when avoidable.

I do think that our politicians should be held to a high standard the example I think is most obvious is the female labor mo who wanted to go home early to spend time with a sick child who was already under family care, would a female officer or specialist get the same options if they where on deployment?

If these people are going to play games with peoples lives they have to be held to the same standard of service if not risk.

Malcolm:

25 Jul 2013 7:33:39pm

Tony has built the asylum issue up to being WW3 so his use of the military to sink the boats option comes as no surprise. I am willing to bet that lots of people will actually vote for the WW3 option which is another indicator that we Australians are a very very dumb bunch. I feel really sorry for Tony Abbott - he really is a very unhappy person.

kevca:

25 Jul 2013 8:14:51pm

What would you suggest? After Rudd stopped what was working which allowed poor people stuck in camps for years to languish, cause they don't have thousands to spend on boat smugglers. Shame on you Rudd.If the navy are risking their lives trying to rescue people why not do it for the right reason to prevent people drowning.

Coogera:

26 Jul 2013 11:53:40am

Malcolm:

Both Rudd and Abbott have provided well considered proposals. Unfortunately they face legal issues with these proposals. Hence real progress will only be made by addressing these legal issues which should include repudiation of the refugee convention.

Giles:

25 Jul 2013 7:33:51pm

Of course it's a Defence problem. The Navy are complaining about having to intercept all the boats and there are fears of PTSD in the future. I'm sure the Navy Chiefs would much rather their sailors were doing other things.

I fail to see how this is catch up politics when the election campaign hasn't even begun.

Notfooled:

26 Jul 2013 11:37:02am

The election campaign began the infamous day they put Capt Chaos back in charge. Self admission that it was the reason they brought him back, no other. So straight away Capt Flim Flam said, well no it's not Sept 14 now, we will wait until I have dazzled them, until they have witnessed my new clothes, then they shall vote. Not very helpful in planning holidays etc etc etc is it ? Bring it on, in the words of Julia Who ?

Mike 1:

26 Jul 2013 10:34:33am

You are right rabbie, bring out the gunboat and attack helicopters. I thought he might be missing a few screws when he was health minister, but this idea is proof positive. If as others on here say, it had been 6 years in the making, I would hate for us to have a real emergency declared. "Yep we'll solve it, just give us 6 years and she'll be Jake"

Not the cane toad:

Libby H:

25 Jul 2013 7:46:47pm

Allan Behm says it is not the defence's problem as they are not being attacked by people.....WTF We had people over in East Timor for 10yrs who were defence soldiers and were not being attacked by anyone. Defence were used to clean up after the Queensland floods...the defence force do many duties that are not military in there action. So turning back boats would well and truly fit into what our military could be used for... Its not all about war... so out of touch. If the Coalition can turn back the boats which l believe they can, it will save lives.

MJLC:

25 Jul 2013 7:52:29pm

So this is the result of three years of "policy" development is it? - "WE will stop the boats" is now "HE will stop the boats". For a political party that rants about multiple layers of bureaucracy and the need for smaller government this borders on the absurd.

Anyway, now we have Operation Sleepy Weasel (younger readers may need to Google at this point) to add into all the other lunacy floating around. If the idea is to frighten these people off by demonstrating we are actually stark raving, foam-mouthed mad, then paradoxically it may even work.

mushroom:

MJLC:

26 Jul 2013 12:27:05pm

"After the Tampa affair, and the declaration of the War on Terrorism, in 2001 Kim Beazley announced that the Australian Labor Party, if in government, would establish an Australian Coast Guard "responsible for conducting Australia's coastal surveillance and meeting Australia's maritime protection needs, including in relation to illegal immigration, drugs, fisheries, and quarantine-related issues". This plan met with criticism. Peter Reith criticised Beazley for stating that an Australian Coast Guard both will and will not be an "answer to the question of people smuggling". The plan was criticised by the Australian government, on the grounds that it would either be prohibitively expensive or inadequate to the task"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_guards_in_Australia)

I think you may find you've just strayed off-message Mushie. Far better to check with HQ first before freelancing into the minefield of creative thinking.

Mattb:

25 Jul 2013 8:08:20pm

Tony Abbott's "turn the boats back, when safe to do so" ranting could be exposed with one simply question. That is Tony, please explain "what it is that would not make it safe to do so"??. As soon as he answers this question the peoples smugglers know exactly what needs to be done to ensure their boats will not be turned around, which will most likely involve threatening to scuttle or simply scuttling the boat forcing the occupants into the water and putting the Australian Navy personnel and Asylum seekers lives in danger.

What he announced today is a change in name for his policy of no solutions. He has changed it from "Stop the boats" to "Operation sovereign borders" and you've just gotta love how part of his solution involves increasing the size of offshore processing centres. Shows just how confident he and his bunch of clowns are that they are gonna be able to "stop the boats".

Notfooled:

Paulh:

26 Jul 2013 1:10:28pm

What a joke.why is it ok to tow and escort boats from within Indonesian waters hundreds of klms to Christmas Island and yet Not ok to take them the less than 100klms back to safety.we had policies( like them or loathe them ) that WORKED,yet Rudd scrapped them.the UNHCR was NOT drawn up (in the 1950's) for economic refugees,it was for refugees from war torn countries crossing neighbouring borders.Rudd has caused this fiasco and does not have the decency to admit his mistakes ,as far as fixing the issue Rudd hasn't a clue, but certainly shows he will spend borrow and spend without a care.Rudd's hypocrisy regarding spending and waste is offensive, constant tax payer funded adverts in all forms of media are exactly what he once hated and stated he would Not do. This fool will do whatever it takes to stay in power.

Stirrer:

25 Jul 2013 8:09:00pm

He will 'fix' the 'crap; of climate change by 'direct action; which has no action.He will "fix" food shortage by having a plan based on a thought bubble followed by a white paper to be followed by a green paper to create a food bowl which his non action clmate change policy will ensure becomes a dust bowl.Now he has a plan to safeguard our national security which is under an emergecy created by a few poor souls drowning at sea- the plan is based on a plan to use our depleted ADF subject to the co-operation of neighbouring countries which he and his deputy have insulted by mis represeting them and threatening to "cross" their sea borders.A plan concotted by an ex ADF person who a few weeks ago said we should get tough with Indonesia and a would be Minister for Immigration who is reported to have suggested that we should not allow Muslims into the country.And I thought KR was a loose cannon!!

Whatever happened to the economy? Maybe the ADF will be called on to fix that too-by marching us all into corporate run slave labor camps.

Dino not to be confused with:

25 Jul 2013 8:10:13pm

Thanks Michael,Have you noticed that Asylum seekers are 'more important' than the cost of living.Apples and oranges.I wish the emphasis was more on the price of eggs etc.The asylum thing is a smokescreen.

TJ:

Kitty:

26 Jul 2013 7:22:44am

My thoughts as well. "Dubya" is calling his own war on terror, only it's a war on unarmed and desperate men, women and children. If you don't agree you must be " unpatriotic ", real tea party stuff.This is no job for the military and it was a terrible look, Abbott, Morrison and their token Jim Moylan, a retired General looking for relevance.Sanity has left the room.

Notfooled:

26 Jul 2013 11:42:42am

They are not all desperate by any means Kitty. Check the arrivals records and footage, Armani gear, Rolex watches, YSL bags and steroid enhanced frames abound. Sure there are legitimate refugees in there but so many are not. That is the problem created by ALP policy and inaction. How and where to sort the mess out ? Brave Aussies on the front lines are dealing with this every day and I feel for them, it must be a living hell of a job. Rudd should apologise to these people and help them.

Asceptic:

Aussie Sutra:

26 Jul 2013 5:48:53am

Of course the boats will keep coming for a while! Gillard clearly established that no matter what was said by the Australian government, they would just accept every arrival and put them straight into the Australian community. Even after putting her Manus Island and Nauru "solutions" in place, those locations filled up within days and the government simply started putting unvetted arrivals directly into the Australian community in their thousands. Until the Labour government really proves that the people arriving now have NO CHANCE of being placed in Australia, the people smugglers will keep on bringing more and more. Stick to your guns on this please Rudd. And do not...I repeat DO NOT let so much as ONE of the new arrivals set foot into Australia, even on the most temporary basis...as to do so will only reinforce the perception that the people smugglers and illegal arrivals have that we are a soft touch and only here to to be abused.

James in Brisbane:

Terry2:

26 Jul 2013 6:00:37am

so, Tony Abbott has subcontracted his responsibility to announce and explain policy to a retired Major General: not a good look.

I think the Australian people need our PM and alternative PM to front up to a televised debate or public forum where they can be questioned by a panel of 'eminent people' and explain their policies on asylum seekers in detail.

Zoltar:

26 Jul 2013 12:56:53pm

It is my understanding that Scott Morrison runs the opposition's asylum seeker policy, not the opposition leader. Such delegation is a good development. Because the last thing we need is another control freak Prime Minister crushed into paralysis.

R. Ambrose Raven:

26 Jul 2013 6:36:09am

"Border protection" increasingly risks creating far greater tensions, both regional and internal, than any conceivable impact of the still small number of refugee boatpeople. Our polity's increasingly belligerent discourse - despite its futility - has steadily less connection with reality, but risks driving dramatic increases in regional tensions and much more savage attacks by the Hard Right on our own marginalised and vulnerable.

Rudd's stupid proposal for a Melanesian Solution promises to cause as much damage to Australia's standing in the region, and PNG itself, than it might do to any refugees. But then, why would a revenge-obsessed traitorous control freak care about the international tensions such a spectacularly stupid policy would create?

It is very likely to fail, given the legal problems and the ease with which a continuing flow of boatpeople would overwhelm it. Just as it is the refugees themselves who are punished for the sins of the people-smugglers, the feeble governance institutions of PNG are to be perverted to suit the political convenience of a grubby politician with an election to win.

One and only one useful point will arise from all this mess - how appallingly inappropriate our current attitudes and policies are to what are well-known economic, social, and environmental challenges. Obsessive-compulsive capitalist consumerism inevitably requires that our policy actually be designed to support physically and socially unhealthy behaviour; even worse, it creates and requires a brutal and cynical intolerance of those who can't, won't, or aren't in a position to "compete" for increasingly insecure jobs, unaffordable housing and the other costly and wasteful accoutrements of what the advertising industry propagandises as "the consumer experience".

As with spending on Aboriginal affairs, what is in fact keep-quiet (AusAID) money is very largely wasted because it is ideologically utterly opposed to any measures that would truly benefit Pacific Islanders. Again as with Aboriginal affairs, there is total and absolute refusal to accept that there can be any development pathway other than the shopkeeper capitalism that marked the rise of European nations.

Joy:

26 Jul 2013 6:50:40am

Christisn Kev established a policy six short years ago that enabled the refugee smugglers to establish a business model that has lead to death, at least 1,100 and rising daily. Now he was and is PM and his policy has caused a national disgrace and brings shame on us all. Christian Kev has no successful track record of implementing anything that has worked except massive spending and debt. Kev has proposed a new policy driven totally by the need to be re elected and based on his track record this new policy will fail in all respects but for spending and debt. Again with no thought for the deaths attributable to him he is now running election advertisements saying that spending and debt is not a problem because someone has told him that his spending has given the nation a triple a.What kind of person is Kev, who creates a problem that leads to deaths and then focuses on more spending and debt?He is a shameful national disgrace.

Coogera:

Smuggler:

26 Jul 2013 6:55:05am

All the Coalition have been doing since trashing the Malaysian Solution was to encourage the people smugglers through shrill megaphone falsehoods about the hopelessness of our border security. Abbott, the Smuggler's Inc. have sent your cheque in the mail.

Tony:

26 Jul 2013 6:55:59am

The way I see it,the boats arrive illegally and the people getting onto those boats take a risk where the consequences are known to all,Australia is committed to looking after 'Australia' first so I think the Rudd Govt took a bold step in the PNG solution, a step that needed to be taken because until now both political parties have been squabbling endlessly and have provided no solution..until now.Lets not let Australia become another 'Britain" as history will show multicultural societies don't work,fat too much apathy and squabbling in the Aussie govt,well done Rudd for coming up with a solution which will,if enforced ,stem the flow of these illegal migrants(who don't belong in Aus)

Len Heggarty:

KK:

26 Jul 2013 7:04:20am

The events of the past few months have shown that surges in boats have been due to domestic politics in Australia and nothing to do with world events. There has been no upsurge in violence in the places boat people come from yet we are witnessing many times more arrivals than ever before.

This is due to the imminent election and smugglers trying to maximise profits before a likely coalition victory after which their enterprise might not be so lucrative.

Alpo:

26 Jul 2013 7:06:11am

And what is this "solution" supposed to solve?... Nothing! There is no real solution to asylum seekers without a regional plan that must start with an agreement with Indonesia. Kevin Rudd may be moving at the speed of light and thus totally bewildering our clueless Leader (so called) of the Opposition, but he is broadly moving in the right direction. I disagree about the overall hysteria and paranoia, but I agree with both the bilateral and the multilateral approach to this regional problem... Ah, by the way, the ones who are experiencing the greatest problems of all are the refugees themselves, not a rich and prosperous country like Australia or even a rapidly emerging country such as Indonesia.

john:

26 Jul 2013 9:00:30am

That post is full of silly and useless rhetoric again, Alpo.

Of course there is a plan available to Australia that will not only not offend our regional neighbours, but will cause them to actually cheer us on - and that plan is the compulsory repatriation of every person who enters Australia without a visa.

We are permitted, perhaps even encouraged, to do that under the terms of the 1961 Convention, to which Australia is a signatory.

Although I have done it before, and you have ignored it before, here it is again:

"These agreements are ? providing for the return of refugees and asylum seekers to countries where they have had or could have sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, either within that country or by an act of refoulement".

Coogera:

26 Jul 2013 11:38:07am

Getting any level of cooperation with Indonesia will be difficult as many officials are involved with people smuggling. Much was made of Indonesia stopping Iranians getting visas on arrival because of Rudd's request. However as reported in the Jakarta Post, the decision had more to do with the high percentage of Iranians who are drug smugglers .

Coogera:

26 Jul 2013 11:38:29am

Getting any level of cooperation with Indonesia will be difficult as many officials are involved with people smuggling. Much was made of Indonesia stopping Iranians getting visas on arrival because of Rudd's request. However as reported in the Jakarta Post, the decision had more to do with the high percentage of Iranians who are drug smugglers .

Zoltar:

26 Jul 2013 1:06:11pm

There is no real solution to asylum seekers until we withdraw from the refugee convention. Because, whilst ever we offer higher rewards for claiming asylum in Australia, compared to in other countries, asylum seekers will be lured to our shores.

JD:

26 Jul 2013 7:36:43am

I'm not exactly sure who Alan Behm is (you refer to him as "a former senior Defence official") but the comment you attribute to Mr Behm, ?This is not a Defence problem. These people are not attacking Australia.?, is completely without any credibility whatsoever. Since when did people "attacking Australia" become the principle (and only) criteria by which decisions are taken and justified in the use of Defence assets? One need only recall the use of Defence in many of the events of recent years such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 (ref: http://www.ausaid.gov.au/Publications/Documents/tsunami_report_june05.pdf) or Operation QUEENSLAND FLOOD ASSIST following the 2010-11 Queensland Floods (ref: http://www.defence.gov.au/opex/global/opqldflood/index.htm) to only name two where Defence assets where provided to lend humanitarian assistance. Honestly, what an absolutely wonderful use of these assets and the skills our Defence forces bring to the table. The other aspect of this particular reference is the use of the phrase "who worked closely with both Coalition and Labor governments". I find it rather interesting that the level of Defence support and management leadership provided has occurred under both a Coalition led Government (2004 Tsunami) and a Labor led Government (2010-11 Queensland Floods) so for Mr Behm to make such a ludicrous comment can only be attributed to the desire of some individuals to seek their 15 minutes of fame. We deserve better information and reporting from "a former senior Defence official" and our journalists, especially those who benefit from the taxpayer's dollar at the ABC.

Alpo:

26 Jul 2013 11:21:23am

Yes, but you still haven't explained what the Coalition's arrangement will solve that the current one isn't already capable of solving. The military can only add significant gun power... are you expecting to use it? Can a 3-star general do a better job than a 2-star one in these circumstances, and if so why?This idea has the word "political stunt" written all over it...

Not the cane toad:

KevinS:

26 Jul 2013 7:42:46am

"I see your PNG and raise you a three star commander".

I think no one would deny that something must be done about people smugglers, who have proved time and again (and twice in just this week) they care nothing about the safety of the cargo they are profiteering from.

The latest edict to end the people smugglers goes from tough and hardline to depraved.Abbott, Morrison and Molan must know that a policy that is aimed to stop the boats at sea, means the people smugglers have their money and won't stop enticing people on those boats. "Turn the boats around if it is safe to do so" achieves no more than a convenient photo op and media stunt as no doubt conveniently a media crew will be on hand as the order comes from a tough Mr A. "Top that Vlad" says Tony.

kathywho:

26 Jul 2013 11:01:32am

Zaphod - replying to both your heads!

I think the idea of the PNG solution was to buy some time to work out a much better (hopefully) policy in this area - which means, I'd hope looking at the whole range of ways in which refugees can enter this country as part of Australia's commitment to the Humanitarian program, along with the issue of asylum seekers (i.e. those who arrive and claim asylum as a refugee).

Time had to be bought because the number of asylum seekers arriving in 2012 and this year has, I'd imagine, totally overwhelmed an already stretched system (from 5000 per year to 17,000 in 2012 and more than double that in 2013). The PNG deal has a 1 year initial time frame.

Certainly and ideally and hopefully it would be good to focus attention on taking in refugees through the UNHCR Humanitarian program, which is what you are suggesting, where more than 15,000,000 are waiting for resettlement possibilities from those 40 countries (including Australia) who have offered to take a quota each year. That is what Rudd is planning (he has increased the quota to 20,000 and has stopped providing places for asylum seekers thus increasing the places available (asylum seekers are given the places reserved for those on the Humanitarian Program). He has also raised the possibility/necessity of looking at the Refugee Convention - which has led to the possibility of asylum seekers - and probably increasing numbers of them as it becomes obvious that this is a faster way to a new life.

None of this is easy - but a plan is obvious. It is clear Rudd is maintaining and increasing the Governments' commitment to refugees. It would be really interesting to see what other countries such as Germany, Canada, and the US do in this area as these are countries with generous participation in the Humanitarian program. Some like the US and possibly Germany (?), and increasingly Canada, must have to work this out in relation to the issue of asylum seekers.

Jean:

You say "Surely the only way to deal with this is not to look for quick-fix solutions but to work on regional agreements that will actually stand the test of time."

Isn't it time up for Labor Michael? Or does your test of time go beyond 6 years?

Does protection of your own borders mean you rely on your neighbours? Or do you take the all measures yourself first and try and enlist friendly regional assistance?

The appointment of a military leader is not unique for coping with a national emergency. Major General Alan Stretton as head of the National Disasters Organisation became legendary in the way he amalgamated authorities after Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin on Christmas Day 1974 managing the evacuation of 35,000 people in 6 days.

Historian Peter Forrest wrote of Stretton: "He was able to use all of his authority and connections to focus the entire resources of the nation onto Darwin's situation and its needs and I think he was just about uniquely placed to do that."

Are not the top military leaders, like Stretton, better trained at co-ordinating several different organisations in carrying out a mission and reaching the ultimate national aim? Do we have to have a war to use their talents or is the 50,000 people crossing our borders illegally and 1000 souls unnecessarily lost at sea not a national emergency?

Kangaroo Edward:

26 Jul 2013 8:11:42am

Operation desperate Tony more like. Who is he trying to represent with his tea party style rallies and his modeled on Bush style hawkish politics? What's next, conscription? Shoot for the dole?Does declaring a national emergency on everything mean he will declare martial law if it suits his political interest?

Ravensclaw:

26 Jul 2013 8:16:06am

It has been well documented that Howard was able to turn boats around.

When Rudd tried to turn boats around following his 2007 election promise to do just that, there was a boat explosion where 3 were killed (with a media cover-up that excluded the key fact the vessel was being towed by our navy/customs vessel when it happened), and when a second vessel was actually taken back to port, the asylum seekers refused to get off. This caused such embarrassment for Indonesia and Australia, that Kevin Rudd made secret deals with the asylum seekers to by-pass many of our processes to get them off the boats and away from the media.

You just got to remember 1 thing. Just because Labor can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. It should be pretty obvious by now.

George:

With every $100 bucks of aid money I'd like to ask those having 7 or more children to get microchip contraception.

250 M Indonesians any wonder they peddle Australia as the promised land of free houses, baby bonuses, centrelink, medical etc.

I know of 2 Aussie pensioners who live 6 months of the year in Bali to get away from the cold winters/arthritis. It costs a lot less to live there. 3 M pensioners get better warmer life ? Anyone like to expand on this ?

No one tells the better life seekers the jobs they could do have gone to China, Philippines, India, Vietnam nor that we have lots homeless many of whom are dying of the cold on the streets.

Hope KR's PNG is successful for the sake of everyone. Manus around 30 degrees no humidity golden beaches palm trees ..boy its cold in Melbourne today.

tonyj:

26 Jul 2013 8:39:57am

What a very Liberal response ! Call up the Generals ! Announce a state of National Emergency (from Opposition no less). Will the 3 star person have his own brass band to toot at the invading hordes of fuzzy-wuzzies ? Let's resurrect Montgomery - better still - Nelson of Trafalgar !

Seriously - when the occupants of Stopped Boats set their vessels alight, the right person to do the job will be a Search and Rescue manager - backed up by lots and lots of paramedic crews .

Kevin:

26 Jul 2013 8:58:33am

Good article, finally a bit of balance.

This issue is a political football but it is completely the MSM fault. Why have you allowed Abbott to run his baseless fear campaign? Why have you let him get away with claiming to have the solution when the facts clearly prove he has no policy that could possibly work, at least not until the other day when he said he would keep Rudd's new PNG solution?

Had the MSM held him to account for his blatant lies and lack of policy on this issue then he would have had to stop lying and maybe then the debate could have focussed on the facts of this issue and possibly solutions?

The government will be judged on their performance in all areas including this but I suggest before people rush to judgement they consider the fact that the coalition, at every turn, have prevented this government from implementing the policies they believed would solve this problem. There is no honest, facts based argument that could be put to absolve the coalition of their portion of blame for the current asylum seeker problems.

Greg:

26 Jul 2013 9:09:09am

All this talk about "war" and "solving it ourselves" and getting in the military to address a civil issue that is not between sovereign states is absurd and profoundly dangerous. In their desperation to outpoint Labor on a wholly confected "crisis" the Libs have lost all judgement. This is madness. Menzies got us fraudulently into Vietnam, Howard got us into Iraq, and now they're at it again. It's the Tories' favourite card. Not again. Not for this.

Coogera:

26 Jul 2013 9:37:25am

Neither political party has quick fix solutions. All solutions to date have been well thought out and all unfortunately have their limits. All approaches have been tactical rather than strategic in nature. Regional solutions are just another tactical response that will solve little. PNG has been condemned for human trafficking and government officers in both Thailand and Indonesia are involved in human trafficking, Success was recently announced by Rudd in getting Indonesia to limit Iranians coming to Indonesia. However as reported in the Jakarta Post, the main reason Iranians now have no access to visas on arrival is that a high percentage are drug carriers and only constitute a small percentage of tourist arrivals

The key problem we face is the Australian legal system. Approaches by all political parties are attempts to side step this system. The sad fact is the Australian legal system does not work in Australia's interests. Perhaps changing Australia's immigration act and regulations in conjunction with repudiating the refugee convention might be sufficient. Otherwise the -Abbott idea of declaring a national emergency has some merit. This however should be accompanied by the formation of a government of national unity and the suspension of the constitution which would then be rewritten..

ScottBE:

26 Jul 2013 10:37:50am

In keeping with the irrational approach taken by the Liberal Party these days; Mr Abbott's response to the Rudd Plan is severely hyperbolic. This is not an emergency - it is a problem of Indonesian business. This does not require a military response - unless Mr Morrison expects to fire on boat people.

Last nights interview with Mr Morrison left two big impressions on my mind. 1. Mr Morrison looked for all the world like a kid who has finally got the toys he wanted for xmas. A playful smile flitting throughout his description of how He would be in charge of the military. This was the only straight answer he gave to Tony Jones. All others he carefully dodged and returned to his sales spiel.2. Mr Morrison is talking about War. He obviously would not consider the Indonesian response to his unilateral decision-making. He stated clearly that he would make decisions according to Australian sovereign interest - no reference to Indonesia. My fear is that Mssrs Abbott and Morrison are so determined that we are going to have a worse outcome with Indonesian relations than we had under Mr Howard!

This is not a war, it is a race. The Liberal response has been the same as the supposed and failed "War of Drugs"! While Mr Rudd is seemingly trying to engage the ASEAN region in a diplomatic co-operation to manage people smuggling (as distinct from asylum seekers) Mr Abbott wants war with refugees and the Indonesian nation!

In George Orwell's 1984, war is maintained against an unknown foe in order to keep the masses distracted from real issues and to develop social unity... it is a political tool for social control. The Libs are terribly Orwellian these days.

Ross:

26 Jul 2013 10:39:26am

A huge amount of effort, if not all, is being concentrated on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. How about attacking this from the jump off point, Indonesia. We already know that the Indonesian government has absolutely no any interest in stopping the criminal people smugglers and it appears that there is evidence that the military has also been involved in assisting the criminals. So....AFP have identified the main criminals, put a bounty on information that identifies their whereabouts, their contacts, where they are getting their boats...if need be pay more for those craft, then scuttle them or rent them to the criminals then make them unserviceable.....nothing like a large amount of dissatisfied customers to course them grief . Identify the criminals targets and make sure they are well informed that they will never get residency in Australia and what will very likely happen to them. If we are going to spend money, spend it at the front line financing massive disruption to this criminal trade..... just follow the money.

Trevor:

26 Jul 2013 10:46:07am

Fancy a three star military officer reporting to Morrison. He would never get a word in. The hairy chested scare mungerer himself is a health hazard. A prominent QC and human rights advocate commented recently, that the best thing about the Rudd/ONeal arrangement, was that it reduced the probability of Morrison becoming Immigration Minister. Lets keep everthing crossed.

Another Aussie:

Tag:

26 Jul 2013 10:53:48am

When John Howard sent the SAS against the asylum seekers he set the pace for demonising them in the eyes of the Australian public, now Abbott is militarising all civil organisations involved in our response to unarmed asylum seekers in leaky boats, well done! Very "high drama" though.This goes beyond stopping boats of refugees from drowning or challenging the people smugglers business.

We may as well just opt out of the refugee treaty altogether and just focus on processing the fly-in asylum seekers.Arrest all boarder trangressors and send them back to their homeland (wherever that is) at the completion of their gaol sentence.

Or maybe just allow the government to try to sort this out without undermining their efforts.

There are other policy areas that need this scrutiny, this one is just a very dirty business and is going to bog us down forever.

Circular:

26 Jul 2013 10:54:00am

Love the way a retired General, on probably a substantial pension, advises and then gets a pay rise for fronting up a policy. Advising himself into a job me thinks. Moylan's support of the coalition is paying off.

RosieA:

26 Jul 2013 10:57:48am

I so totally agree, Michael, that quick fixes make for poor policy. Part of the issue, I suppose, is that many in the electorate don't like complexity, do not like problems and obstacles, and want everything solved.....now! Both major parties seem willing to ignore reality to pander to the electorate.

If Abbott really thought it all an emergency, a bipartisan approach would be essential but curiously, this isn't what he wants. It is also not clear, exactly what the emergency is that he sees......is it large numbers of people drowning at sea (which is an emergency); that asylum seekers are actually arriving on our shores; that more and more people are trying to "queue jump"; or that Labor have picked up in the polls?

I am not quite sure how Major General Molan can be suspicious of the timing of Rudd's announcement and not apply the same suspicion to the Coalition's announcement, particularly as it comes only a matter of days after Rudd's. The Coalition also says that it has been working on the policy for years, yet it is in response to an emergency.......presumably a three year long emergency. If the Coalition is returned to power, we can only hope there are no more emergencies during that time.

One may also ask, what defines an emergency for Abbott? For someone who cannot accept advice from experts, particularly in relation to a changing climate, it seems that an emergency must have "popular" acceptance......no room for leadership here.

Quite frankly, I think we have got to the point where the business of government is too serious to be left to the current crop of politicians (there are the exceptions of course and I do not mean to disparage them).

Nacnud:

Coogera:

26 Jul 2013 11:28:39am

A regional approach has limited value if for no other reason that government officials in Thailand and Indonesia are involved with human trafficking.

The problem with all approaches is they are challenged legally. Hence the only way forward is to make deterent measures legal. This means changing the migration act and regulations as well as repudiating the refugee convention. The LNP proposal for a national emergency also has merit as this could involve suspending the constitution and rewriting it to ensure refugees has no legal rights under Australian law.

JOP:

26 Jul 2013 11:31:55am

Search as I might, there is no 'policy' in this. What is the 3 Star expected to do with all the information that will supposedly flow from all the agencies that he/she is somehow expected to manage (above and beyond what Border Protection Command already does)? What action will he/she be permitted, authorised or directed to take that isn't already in place? These are the real policy questions. They should be asked continually until answered. To even give this PR stunt an operational name is quite pathetic. As for the retired General, he should perhaps have done as MacArthur lamented, and just quietly faded away.

sleepykarly:

26 Jul 2013 1:37:08pm

A few years ago the Coalition stopped the 'Malaysia Solution' because Malaysia was not a Refugee Convention signatory. They insisted that all arrivals should be processed in Convention Signatory countries like PNG.

Now that Rudd has arranged for precisely what the Coalition insisted on - that ALL incoming asylum seekers are being processed in PNG or similar - they are horrified.

Now they want to 'tow the boats back' to Indonesia, which is NOT a Signatory!

Please explain to me how the Coalition position has any honesty, or even consistency. I can see nothing except an attitude of 'Whatever the Government does, even if it is what we are demanding, they are wrong!"

If they win this next election, and find themselves actually having to achieve something positive instead of simply sabotaging everything they see, they will be in totally foreign territory themselves!

Freddie:

26 Jul 2013 1:41:18pm

I've meet Jim Molan and, I've heard him speak on many occasions.I thought he had been a very good soldier and had the makings of a reasonable General. Burt I remember also an occasion someone asking him a question about the Australian Defence Forces preparedness on the eve of going to Iraq with G W Bush. Jim Molan gave a, what I thought, bizarre answer; very cock a hoop. The questioner put it to Jim that Military Officers know very little about how Australian society works let alone countries like Iraq, so how could you expect soldiers to fight this kind of war. Jim was dismissive of his view. Well Australia went to Iraq and encountered numerous problems like the US with shoulder launched rockets that rendered Tanks as coffins and IEDs that frightened the daylights out of everyone, and the retisance of the locals to wards the 'foreign invaders'. Then we go to Afghanistan and repeat the same mistakes. Only in the last days of the Gillard Government has Australia found a way to get out of the quagmire.Along the way Jim Molan became an advisor to a US General and, another Australian know-all advisor got on TV every other night to tell Aus viewers the obvious after it had occurred.Jim Molan now looks like some sort of 'miss-begotten ego syndrome looking for somewhere to happen'.What if his plan is implemented in a Abbott Govt. Think of the scenario, Australia and the US pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many women and children are oppressed. And become refugees. And finish up in Indonesia. Over 100,000 of them impacting on the Indonesian communities. And Abbott and Molan sabre rattle! And the Indonesia Govt responds, on behalf of its people, by saying to the Refugees here is a barge, a boat, a junk, a sampan, a bamboo raft; you leave Indonesia now! (what Australians would say F-off and DCB)Then we find 100,000 Refugees have settled 80km south of Derby or 60 Km north of Kununurra. What are you going to do with them? No body in South East Asia will want them because there in Australia. Papua New Guinea will say 'not part of any agreement', they are already in Australia. Abbott has already entertained thoughts of Australian troops going to Mindanao to prop up a pathetic Vatican inspired Govt in Manila.The same Abbott who was part of a Cabinet that decided to sent Australian Troops to 'War' in Iraq with out putting it before the Australian Parliament. And without proof of WMDs to Australian people!The same 'military-morons' are at it again, but this time on our doorstep. It will cost Australia its reputation, its respect, likely Trade and, quite possible its Sovereignty.I think that under the circumstances that Rudd has done a pretty good job in such short time and that it just needs to play out over the next couple of years.